The "Crisis" — from Cripps to Selwyn Lloyd (1961)

From the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The workers, whose wages and jobs are involved, view the latest “crisis" as a serious matter, as also do the employers who are fearful about their falling profits, but in every other respect it has the appearance of a farce, represented almost every other year since the end of the war. The Opposition, forgetting that crises also happened when they were the government, say that the thing itself and Selwyn Lloyd’s methods of handling it are evidence of Tory ineptitude and viciousness. The Tories, embarrassed by their promises that it would not happen again when the people were “set free” from Labour government planning and controls, now find themselves committed to the idea of planning, though this time it is to be by a national economic council, representing government employers and trade unions instead of planning from Whitehall. Except for variations of detail and emphasis there isn't a single original idea in the new Tory policy and no indication that they are any better at smoothing out capitalism than were the Labour government. Most of Selwyn Lloyd's speeches and actions might have come straight from the late Sir Stafford Cripps.

The elements of the problem are fairly simple. The manufacturer, if he is to sell his goods, has to offer them at competitive prices, "as high as the market will bear,” but not so high as to leave the market to cheaper competitors. But he also has to worry about his wage costs. If wages increase too much his profit suffers so he needs something to act as a brake on wage-claims and at present the unemployment brake is missing. As the purpose of capitalism is making profit, what are the employers and the government to do in a situation like this? Fight the unions over all wage claims? But that means bringing factories and transport to a temporary standstill, at enormous cost in the shape of lost production and profits, and with the risk that the government would lose the next election. Two policies that had looked promising for a time were Cripps' appeal to the workers not to claim higher wages, and the policy of raising the price level by currency inflation. If manufacturers know they can count on steadily rising prices for what they sell they do not have to be adamant about wage increases induced by the rising cost of living. But while this is workable inside the country it cannot help the exporter, selling abroad: he cannot put up his prices. Cripps was eventually persuaded to devalue the pound in order to make it cheaper for the foreigner to "buy British"; but in the nature of things this is a remedy that cannot be safely repeated every few years.

The other part of the Cripps plan that has been copied by all his successors is to ask for more output per worker. The idea behind this is that provided all the additional output is sold, it would permit wages to rise without cutting into profit.

Where Cripps Left Off

The present government has carried on from the wage restraint policy of the late Sir Stafford Cripps when he was Chancellor in the post-war Labour government. It was his White Paper on Personal Incomes, Costs and Prices, 1948, which laid down the policy that “there should be no further general increase in the level of personal incomes without at least a corresponding increase in the volume of production.” There should be no increase of income from profits and rent, and rises of wages should only be asked for either when productivity was increased or to attract workers to industries short of labour. In particular he objected to workers in one industry demanding increases to keep up with workers in another industry, and in 1949 when the devaluation of the pound again put up the cost of living he condemned wage increases aimed at keeping up with the rise of prices.

Cripps was helped to some extent by the fact that the T.U.C. endorsed his wage restraint policy and the result was that wage rates were falling behind the increased cost of living from 1947 to 1951. The present government has no hope of getting T.U.C. support for a wage freeze, but it calculated that the T.U.C. would be unable to resist the bait of "planning,” because that has long been one of their demands.

In one respect—the pay of teachers and civil servants—Selwyn Lloyd has been more drastic than was Cripps. When the latter was in control all wage-fixing bodies, including the civil service arbitration tribunal, were urged to take note of government policy on wage-restraint: this time the government has imposed its own, over-riding, “pause” on civil service pay and has cut by several million pounds the recommendations on teachers' pay. (The police have been luckier, their big pay increase was already in operation).

This isn't the first time a government has exercised its power to withhold agreement and thus delay wage increases proposed by wages councils. It was done in 1957 in respect of National Health Service workers, and back in 1948/9 the same delaying tactics were used by the Minister of Labour in the Labour Government. It took nearly a year for the retail food council and the hairdressing council to reach agreement in 1948 on proposed pay increases but the Minister, Mr. Isaacs, referred back certain of the proposals. The councils sent them back to him again almost unaltered and the Minister rejected them again in August, 1949. The T.U.C. reported (1950 Report, p. 167) that after a meeting with the Minister the difficulties were removed, and the increases were put into operation in October, 1949, after nearly a year's hold-up. According to Press reports at the time, the Shop Assistants Union had threatened to embarrass the Labour Government by putting down an emergency resolution for the Trades Union Congress.

The tough talk from the government about the “pause” on wage increases aroused similar tough talk from trade union officials declaring that they would have none of it; that they were not going to be dictated to and that “legitimate” wage claims would go on as usual. The unions are quite right to continue the wage struggle but they are only deceiving themselves if they think that there would be no restriction on wage increases if Selwyn Lloyd had not put it there. Wages are always restricted; basically by the fact that they represent the value of the mental and physical energies the worker sells, and at any given moment by the demand, and the amount of unemployment The employers have to aim at keeping wages down to a level which leaves a surplus for profit. This is capitalism, and it is idle to pretend that it can be made to operate as if its purpose was to provide constantly rising real wages without regard to profit In practice, trade unions are forced to recognise this fact hence their almost invariable practice of having to settle at some figure far less than they claim; railway unions in 1958 claiming 10 per cent. and accepting 3 per cent., and the same unions under the Labour Government claiming 12s. 6d. in 1948 and eventually being put off with a few shillings for the lowest paid only. And anyone who thinks that a future Labour Government would or could run capitalism differently when they get another chance should take note of the declaration by Mr. Harold Wilson that ‘'for a future Labour Government no less than for the Conservatives success or failure in the battle against inflation would depend on the ability to secure an understanding with the unions which would make wage restraint possible" ("Remedies for Inflation.” by Harold Wilson. M.P., with a foreword by Hugh Gaitskell, 1957).

And what if the Unions do not agree? The present government obviously hopes that the imposed standstill on government employees will stiffen the resistance of employers in private industry. They doubtless share the envious eye the economist, Mr. Paul Bareau, casts on de Gaulle’s “strong man" government which was able to secure that “to a modest degree . . .  real wages in France were for a time reduced" (Sunday Telegraph, 3 Sept, 1961). And how much better still it might be for the capitalists if instead of trade unions there could be, as there are in Russia, Yugoslavia and elsewhere, government controlled so-called unions that are in fact little more than agencies for imposing discipline and stimulating production.

The Prospect

While the unions are anxiously watching what the government does, other indicators may turn out to be more important Some of the economists think that if unemployment rose to about 2 per cent. —2½ per cent., the unions’ ability to press for higher wages would be curbed. It is at present about 1¼ per cent. or 300,000, but has been rising. Mr. Samuel Brittan, economic editor of The Observer, has this to say:—

  The Government’s hand will be enormously strengthened in the coming months by a marked change of tread in the labour market which actually began as early as June. Disregarding merely seasonal changes, unemployment has since been creeping up and unfilled vacancies have been declining. There will not of course be large-scale unemployment or anything remotely resembling it but labour should become a good deal easier to obtain in the coming months.

If the present crisis follows the pattern of the others since the war the pressure will last for a few months. Profits which have recently been falling will start to go up again because wage increases win be harder to get. The Chancellor will then announce that we have “turned the comer" and the workers will be invited to rejoice. And so it will go on until the next time.

One final comment on the farcical aspects of the crisis. The unions of government workers and workers in nationalised industries are incensed because, they say, they are singled out for worse treatment than that given to workers in private industry; these are the unions that go on record in favour of nationalisation!

Edgar Hardcastle

Should Socialists Support CND? (1961)

Party News from the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

I had to screen grab details for this advertised debate from 1961 because Richard Headicar has been a member of the SPGB since the mid-eighties, standing a couple times - at least - as a SPGB candidate in parliamentary elections. I was in the same SPGB branch as Richard for a number of years in the 1990s and 2000s in London. Lovely bloke.

And the advertised debate from 1961? It had to be 'rejigged' - see below -  because Richard was in the jail for civil disobedience! The things some people do to get out of debating with the SPGB.

From the December 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard:

  The debate organised by Paddington Branch on October 29th almost didn't take place, and then not quite. Mr. Headicar, the CND representative, “sat down” the previous Saturday and got himself two months imprisonment. At the last moment Mr. S. Cash agreed to put the case for CND. He maintained that Socialism was alright as a theory, but mankind was faced with annihilation and all our energies should he devoted to "banning the bomb.” The SPGB were out of contact with the real world, and death would overtake us all, notwithstanding the propagation of Socialist ideas, unless nuclear weapons were abandoned.
  In reply: Melvin Harris for the SPGB showed that CND was similar to many other bodies, which had sprung up in the past, attempting to tackle one or other evil of the capitalist system. These organisations had failed, and CND would fail for the same reason. Nuclear war can not be separated from the problem of war itself. And the constant threat and possibility of war was a direct consequence of the existence of capitalism. The Socialist Party were opposed to all war, and were working for the establishment of Socialism, in which war would be impossible. This was the most important task facing mankind.
 A considerable number of questions were put to both speakers, and many of the audience of 200 took part in the discussion. There was not nearly enough time for everyone. The collection was £13 and literature sales were good. Perhaps one day we shall land a debate with the elusive CND?

This Year's T.U.C. (1961)

From the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Common criticisms of the T.UC. are that it spends time on political and foreign policy questions that ought not to concern trade unions; that the block vote can result in decisions being taken that represent little more than the balance of opinion on the executive committees of a few large Unions; and that the General Council can secure the acceptance of policies that do not harmonise with the view of rank and file trade unionists.

The Guardian took up the first criticism after the 1960 Congress, which it said, spent its time mainly on issues “almost irrelevant to all the real problems of the Unions," and which would not even discuss a Resolution put down by a small Union urging more time for industrial affairs. Some civil service representatives share that view, and it has been argued that Unions of “white collar workers" in particular are reluctant to join the T.U.C. because their members are not predominantly supporters of the Labour Party. It may well be that it is largely this factor that keeps outside two large Unions, the National Union of Teachers and the Local Government Workers Union (NALGO), as well as some others of the four hundred and seventy Unions that are not affiliated, though for the smaller Unions finance is probably a considerable factor. As half of the 184 Unions affiliated to the T.U.C. are not affiliated to the Labour Party, it might be thought that a majority of T.U.C delegates might be prepared to consider altering Congress procedure to make it less like a second Labour Party conference, but Congress votes are dominated by the big Unions and nearly all of these are affiliated to the Labour Party and are apparently opposed to any change of procedure.

The second criticism, concerning the block vote, was heard often in the years when most of the ten largest Unions habitually voted the same way and between them could outvote the remaining 174 Unions. It has been heard less in recent years because the big Unions have been divided, with the largest Union of all, the Transport and General Workers, voting against the the General Council's recommendations on such issues as armaments. No doubt if votes at Congress were cast by each Union in proportion to majority and minority opinion on Union executives and among their members some decisions would go the other way, though in the main it would show itself only in the form of closer votes and smaller majorities.

The third criticism, that the General Council can disregard the views of rank and file trade unionists, is by far the most fundamental. What does it amount to? Obviously the General Council cannot singly do what it likes. It has to get the endorsement of delegates and at times is defeated, as happened this year on the presence of German troops in Wales and last year on nuclear weapons (a decision which Congress this year reversed). Perhaps the explanation of the advantage possessed by the General Council is that they confront Congress with a formulated policy which they recommend for acceptance, whereas the delegates, like the members who send them there, either have no policy and are willing to follow the lead from the platform or are divided over the several different and contradictory alternative policies: which raises the question what ought to be the broad aim of the trade unions.

Looking at the trade unions in the world today it is astounding to recall that in their infancy they were regarded by the employers and governments with real fear, as revolutionary organizations that threatened property and the social system itself. Now the danger has been largely contained, partly by concessions and legislation, but also through the aims that the Unions set themselves. Instead of thinking of themselves as part of the world working class struggling against the employers and the capitalist system, the aim of the trade union leaders in each country is to be consulted by the employers in the running of the industry, and by the government in the determination of national economic policy. While the rank and file trade unionists cannot be said to be positively opposed to this policy of their leaders they are much more concerned with fighting their own employers over wages and conditions, hence the periodical clashes between what the members feel and what their leaders, including the T.U.C., think ought to be done.

There is, of course, a sort of fatal logic about the direction in which the Unions are going. If it is once accepted that world-wide working class action for Socialism is impossible then it can seem to be “realistic" for the Unions to try to help British capitalism against its foreign competitors, by trying to gain markets for exports, by keeping down costs and avoiding strikes, by giving support to armaments, and in the last resort, to wars. All through Congress debates this readiness to think in terms of "British" interests instead of world working class interests comes out, as it did for example in the decision about wage restraint.

Rank and file trade unionists and many of their delegates may think that Congress unconditionally repudiated the idea of a "wage pause" or a restraint on wage claims, and will have paid little heed to the fact that the spokesmen for the General Council put the matter differently. What they did was to offer—on terms—to collaborate with the government in the planning of economic policy: and planning, whether its supporters all realise it or not, necessarily includes the planning of wages and wage increases.

The T.U.C. never has unconditionally excluded wage restraint. In the years 1948 to 1950, in response to the appeal of the Labour government, the majority of the delegates accepted it. Even in 1950, when it was turned down on an E.T.U. resolution, the door was still left open. The E.T.U. resolution rejected wage restraint but only until such time as profits were "reasonably limited," prices controlled and "a positive planning of our British economy" is introduced. This idea has continued as the speeches at this year’s Congress show.

Mr. H. Douglas, speaking for the General Council, said: —

  If the Chancellor was worried why had he not called in the General Council before and put his facts on the table? It had never failed to respond to an appeal for action. Why had not the Chancellor consulted them instead of slapping them in the face? (D. Telegraph 7.9.61).

The new General Secretary, Mr. Woodcock, spoke similarly: —

  We say it is not right for a government of this country to make a decision on a wages pause without any consultation with the trade union movement. That is exactly what the Chancellor did.

The speakers went on to say that they are still willing, on terms, to have a hand, with the employers and the government in working out economic plans. A Daily Herald editorial (9/9/61) puts its linger on the double-edged nature of planning. Though chiding critics of the T.U.C. “who believe that the function of trade union leaders is to help the government to hold down wages,” the article went on to admit that planning is “a practical exercise in which all sides have to make painful concessions in the long-term interest.”

And Mr. Charles Timaeus, writing in Reynolds News (10/9/61), interpreted the speeches referred to above as implying “that a wages pause might be acceptable in certain circumstances and in certain conditions"

Whether the government will make concessions in order to secure trade union collaboration remains to be seen, but one thing is made very clear by the anxious comments in various Liberal, Tory and financial journals, that is that they attach a great deal of importance to avoiding a head-on clash with the trade unions in the coming months. They know the losses the employers can suffer in widespread strikes and are not at all happy that the present government should have behaved as if it wanted a show-down at all costs.

It only remains to emphasise again the truism that the trade unions will not usefully change their direction until the members themselves think out their class position in capitalism and see that what is needed is world-wide working class action to establish Socialism. The alternative, collaboration in each country with the government, may end by bringing the unions nearer to being what the so-called trade unions are in Russia, part of the governmental machine of capitalism.

Edgar Hardcastle

Branch News (1961)

Party News from the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Demonstration for Socialism

Wednesday, October 18th, is the day of the third central London meeting in the Demonstration for Socialism series and is being held in Caxton Hall, Westminster.

The two previous meetings (filling St. Pancras Town Hall in April and Conway Hall in July) were stimulating and successful by all standards. Now, with one speaker drawn from each, a bigger and, it is hoped, an even more fruitful meeting will be held. The normal Party arrangement of the order of the meeting will ensure a substantial part of the time will be devoted to questions and discussion contributions from the audience—this procedure itself aiding the Demonstration for Socialism.

Since it is quite a long time since the SPGB has held meetings at the Caxton Hall, a word or two on the situation of the hall might be timely. Caxton Hall lies just off Victoria Street about mid-way between Victoria Station and Parliament Square. Several bus routes use Victoria Street and St. James’s station (Circle & District Lines) is nearby the hall.

The meeting starts at 7.30 p.m.

Delegate Meeting 

The Autumn Delegate Meeting will be held at Head Office, 52, Clapham High Street, S.W.4 on Saturday and Sunday, October 7th and 8th. Saturday, 2.30 pm to 6 pm, Sunday 11 am to 6 pm. Arrangements are being made by the Standing Orders Committee to re-arrange the seating arrangements in order that the maximum comfort will be possible.

Glasgow

The two Glasgow Branches, having joined up again in their work for Socialism, have reverted to their original name—Glasgow Branch instead of City and Kelvingrove. They have had a most successful outdoor season this summer, both in Glasgow and Edinburgh.

They have arranged a very ambitious programme of weekly lectures extending to the Spring under the title “Problems of the Sixties". Each month's lectures will be devoted to a particular aspect of this, as follows:—

November 1961—In Britain Today.
December 1961—The British Political Scene.
January 1962—Power Politics.
February 1962—The Socialist Searchlight.
March 1962—Marxism Today.
April 1962—History Today.

The subjects for October and November are listed under Meetings.

Ealing

Ealing Branch is now meeting regularly again after the short holiday break in August. The Branch has now been given a new meeting room—bigger, more comfortable, and generally much more pleasant than its previous one. This will certainly provide more incentive for members to venture forth on miserable winter nights.

A very busy winter season is being planned. One of the members now has access to a film projector unit and the Branch intends to take the fullest advantage of this in arranging its lectures and discussions. The new room will also be much more practicable for this purpose. We hope to give further details of the programme next month.

Paddington

Having the Overseas Secretary as their own Branch Secretary is not the only reason for its increasingly international flavour. The proximity of Hyde Park and their virtually West-End location are also important factors. A Wednesday in August is a case in point. Following upon the greetings received from the two branch members visiting Newfoundland, on the chairman's table was a letter from Pierre, a good friend of the Party now back in France. Its main purpose was to express, with appreciation, the extent to which his own socialistic leanings had been clarified and given direction by his participation in Branch and Party meetings. In attendance was Comrade Bryant. It was the eve of his trip round Europe prior to his return to Australia. He was deluged with the addresses of people all over the Continent whom we know to be in sympathy with us. Also in attendance and very welcome was our Austrian comrade, Ernst. Some members met him in Italy last year but for some time he has been working in Scandinavia and he reported briefly but with humour and insight on the scene as he finds it there. A sad note was struck on recollecting that it was he who had first introduced our late Lisa Bryan to the Party. He was able to pass over to the Branch some of her old lecture notes which are certain to be of further educational value.

As they meet in a room above a pub their timetable is governed by the licencing laws which means they have to adjourn before closing time at eleven. However, those who are prepared for a “morning after the night before" usually fit in another three quarters of an hour of discussion at a coffee shop down the road. On the night in question a dozen members descended on the place and to their delight they were joined there by several others including our good comrade M. L. [Michael La Touche] on the eve of his return to the West Indies where the climate is a lot healthier than ours, he finds. A friend, just back from Turkey called just in time to give Peter Byrant a few interesting addresses in Germany and an Indian sympathiser of long standing spent the evening with us.

Their wide perspective has not lessened their enthusiasm for Branch propaganda outings to places nearer home. This summer Paddington has made successful and highly enjoyable trips to Coventry, Nottingham and Stevenage and on our very doorstep, Hyde Park has proved to be well worth the running on Thursday nights.

Wembley

Wembley Branch are pleased to announce that their first indoor public meeting will take place on October 30th when Comrade C. May will be “Introducing the SPGB” to the workers of Wembley. Quite a lot of time and money have been spent on preparing and publicising the event, and Branch members are hoping for a good attendance. Full details of time and place will be found in the advert elsewhere in this issue.

The second of the Branch canvassing efforts in Portsmouth was successful although hampered somewhat by a late start. On this occasion we had the welcome help of a member from Woolwich Branch. During the afternoon and evening, the usual meeting was held on the seafront to an attentive audience, and lit. sales were most encouraging. This is an excellent speaking station. It deserves regular visits throughout the summer season.

Preparations are being made for a series of lectures by Branch members through the winter months. The last series dealt with various religious movements and was very successful. Any comrade having a special knowledge of a particular subject is encouraged to hold forth and other members find this a great help in broadening their general background.

Branch S.S. Sales are now running at over 20 dozen a month. The excellent summer outdoor season has, of course, helped a lot but the persistent canvassing efforts must not be forgotten either. It is the intention to continue these throughout the winter. At the same time we shall encourage our present contacts to attend the branch—and in particular the public meeting already mentioned.

Not forgetting, the lighter side, a social will be held at Christmas and we hope it will be at least as successful as last year's. Full details and tickets will be available later, of course, but preliminary work has already begun.

Donations

For a long time now we have been receiving regular 5/- donations from some one signing themselves “Anon”. Regular donations are a considerable help to a working class party like ours which suffers from restrictive finances. Thank you Comrade.

Literature

The small committee which had such great success in selling literature at the Russian Exhibition at Earls Court, have had further success. A member of the Committee, Comrade Hyams of Hackney Branch, went to the Trade Union Congress at Portsmouth and during the period of the conference sold 60 Socialist Standards and 50 various pamphlets. This is excellent work and Comrades throughout the country could follow this up by attending local political meetings and selling the Party literature.

American Tour

Comrade Gilmac is working hard on his American tour and it is hoped to have details of the meetings he has addressed and his television and radio talks in our next issue.

Canada

The Toronto group is making encouraging progress. Our Comrades Catt, report good discussions and attendances at all of their meetings—even during the hot summer months. Over 20 meetings have been held so far, a grand achievement, especially when it is remembered that the group has been in existence for only a few months.

Persistent attempts are made to keep in the public eye, and with the growth of the group, other socialist comrades in the area are giving their support, so that there is a possibility of forming a local of the S.P.C. in the near future. A heartening report indeed of courage and determination in the face of gigantic odds. Best wishes to our Toronto comrades.

Film Meetings

The H.O. Film Meetings commence on 9th October with an interesting film “The German Story”, which has just been made by the German Democratic Republic. This remarkable film took two years to make and tells the story of two world wars. It takes 85 minutes to run. A large audience is expected. Remember that the film meetings have been changed to MONDAY evenings.

Phyllis Howard

Happy Birthday? (1998)

Book Reviews from the May 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

The British General Election of 1997 by David Butler and Dennis Kavanagh (MacMillan, 1997) and Labour’s Landslide edited by Andrew Geddes and Jonathan Tonge (Manchester University Press, 1997).

One year on from 1 May last year, the hullabaloo has subsided and something more like boo-hoo has started. These two books, however, chronicle New Labour’s climax, not the messy post-coital depression we have been living with since. They are useful in that the demonstrate the fickleness of the British working class’s love affair with the Labour Party, and amply demonstrate its underlying worries about Labour’s suitability for the marital home.

Both expand on their findings that the main reason the working class decided to embark on an affair with Labour was the regular beatings it had been taking from its previous paramour. Labour was wanted primarily for what it wasn’t, not what it was. Most significantly, less than 31 percent of the electorate voted Labour into power last May, despite its “landslide” victory, this being largely because of the extremely low turnout. This, historically, is a low winning share of the vote and actually lower than that managed by the Conservatives under John Major in 1992.

Butler and Kavanagh’s study—Butler has been producing such analyses of General Elections for decades—is typically rigorous and thorough, well researched and with few mistakes. Possibly its most interesting chapter is the one on the press and how Labour managed to win over the affections of Wapping and Fleet Street (which helped avoid the press's anti-Labour excesses of the previous election). Another feature highlighted was the lack of success of those candidates who played the race card (such as Nicholas Budgen in Wolverhampton) and the relative lack of hostility to ethnic minority candidates generally.

Fascinatingly, some of the most bizarre constituency results last year were produced in fights between ethnic minority candidates themselves, such as in Bradford West and in Bethnal Green and Bow, the latter being where the local Bengali community put its traditional pro-Labour loyalties behind it to produce a six-percent swing to the Conservative Bengali candidate and against Labour’s Oona King, a “mixed-race” Afro-Caribbean Jew.

Where the white population has previously elevated the importance of “race” beyond considerations of class politics (or anything else), it is now the ethnic minority population that seems to be doing it. Though in some ways understandable, it is still no more justified for that. For if the 1997 election demonstrated anything it was that a confused and ideologically rootless working class is one that is most prone to the slick blandishments of handsome young spin doctors and their pet vultures.

Dave Perrin

Blogger's Note:

See here for an explanation for the above corrected version.

Letters: Outdated Marx? (1998)

Letters to the Editors from the May 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

Outdated Marx?

Dear Editors,

Having read the Socialist Standard for several months now I must admit that your politics interest me but as far as your views on Marx are concerned I find them old-fashioned and irrelevant. Admittedly last century there was a place for Marxism to help to educate the working class, but the workers are more “street-wise” now and probably more self-centred, though they are fragmented, but the class struggle just does not exist for most of these people. Why don’t you ditch your Marxist views and find a more dynamic method to drive yourself forward and gather the more radical sections of the working class with you? Marx will always be a historic figure for the part he played a hundred and odd years ago, but none of his predictions came true, so why all the emphasis on his methodology?

John Loomes, 

Sheffield

Reply: 

You exaggerate. None of Marx’s “predictions” came true? Has the control of industry become more and more concentrated into fewer and fewer hands? Has the proportion of capital invested in plant, machinery and equipment grown more and more in relation to that spent on living labour? Has the process of capital accumulation proceeded, not smoothly, but in fits and starts, periods of rapid growth ending in periods of slump? Have the rich got richer? Have more and more of the old middle classes become employees? Has the peasantry declined? Has the proportion of wage and salary earners in the working population gone up? Have money-commodity relations spread more and more into all aspects of life? Has the economy become more and more international and globalised? Need we continue?

We don’t blindly adhere to everything Marx said and did. In fact we criticise him on some points, for instance his taking sides in wars and his support for some nationalist movements. We recognise that, because he was politically active at a time when capitalism had not yet fully built up the material basis for a world socialist society, he took up positions on day-to-day issues which are no longer relevant today now that capitalism has done this.

The reason why we continue to refer to Marx’s views on capitalism and history is not because it was him who put them forward but because he happened to be the first person to “lay bare the laws of motion of the capitalist mode of production”. The conceptual tools he developed for analysing capitalism (value, labour-power, surplus value, constant capital, variable capital, rate of surplus value, rate of profit, etc.) are still useful today. Similarly with the tools he developed for analysing past and present societies and social change (forces of production, relations of production, economic base, political and ideological superstructure, class, class interest, class struggle, etc.).

It is true that Marx’s expectation was that the working class would become more and more class conscious and that when a majority had become socialists they would take political action to abolish capitalism and establish socialism and that this hasn’t happened (obviously). But because it hasn’t happened yet does not mean that it never will. If that was true then capitalism would last for ever. But, presumably, you don’t believe that any more than we do.

Editors.

USA

Dear Editors,

I have been interested in Marx’s works for over 60 years and I like to keep tabs on our economy as it unfolds. I do not profess to be an expert in business affairs but from where I sit way up in the bleachers, you might say, I get a wide-angled view that encompasses the whole world. I do not get overly excited about the details, like international skirmishes, the constant bickering over trade agreements or disagreements. I’m aware of them but only as they affect the overall picture itself and how the capitalists react to the various problems. I read all about merging and down-sizing, and about bankruptcies and mass lay-offs of thousands of workers. I see the Dow plunge 550 points in one day. I like to see Marx’s predictions come true, mainly because he has been misquoted and maligned for the past 100 years or more.

In my amateurish way I hope to shed some light on the future of the capitalist system according to Marx. What we have at present is the culmination of thousands of years of progress in the methods in which man produces his needs. It is of paramount importance that we advance to the next system in an orderly way. If we are not careful we may extinguish all life on the planet before Socialism can be established and lose our chance of finally controlling our destiny, within the limits of time and space.

With the introduction of nuclear devices and the constant friction generated on the international scene by capitalist economics we may go the way of the dinosaurs and take with us all other forms of life and all that sustains life, the animals, the birds and the bees, and yes, the vegetation, the water and the very air we breath. Must we bring it to an end? We are heading in that direction.

PS. My father moved from Preston, Lancashire, in 1912 and brought with him to Winnipeg socialist ideas. I moved to California in 1953 mainly for the climate. Legally I am still a Canadian citizen but I like to think I am a citizen of the world.

William Hewitson, 

Santa Maria, California

50 Years Ago: The “Daily Worker” is disappointed with Indian Capitalism (1998)

The 50 Years Ago column from the May 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists never supported the Indian Nationalist movement, knowing well that the propertied interests which financed and controlled it were only concerned with making India safe for Indian capitalism. Not so the Communists. They urged Indian workers to support Nehru and the Congress Party. Now the Daily Worker professes to be astonished because Nehru’s government treats the Indian workers in the same way that they were treated under British rule.

  “What is happening in India? The British trade unionist may well rub his eyes in astonishment. Trade union leaders are being arrested and repressive action is being taken against the Communist Party . . .
  “Such happenings were frequent under British rule, but India is now said to be free . . . The plain fact is that little has changed in India except that it is now ruled directly by the Indian capitalists, landlords and princes by grace of the British Imperialists.” (Daily Worker, 9/4/48.)

There is nothing to cause astonishment in the discovery that Indian capitalism is like any other, but how comes it that the Daily Worker should ever have supposed that it would be different?

[From Notes By The Way, Socialist Standard, May 1948]

News in Review: Wages Battles (1961)

The News in Review column from the November 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Wages Battles

The big thing about Selwyn Lloyd’s small Budget was that it threw out a sort of challenge to the trade unions.

And one of the big things about this winter may be that the unions will accept the invitation to do battle.

The engineers have put in their annual pay claim and the railwaymen are certain to follow suit. If these unions get the same sort of treatment as the government has handed out to the teachers and the civil servants, there will surely be some big strikes.

This is what governments have tried to avoid since the war, preferring to inflate the currency rather than meet the unions head on. The Labour government, with its wage freeze, had perhaps the nearest to a strong anti-union policy.

Since then, the Tories have played it cool. But we were promised some changes when Mr. Lloyd went to the Treasury and the wage pause is one of them.

One fact, though, the wage pause will not change. Workers always have a struggle to get by and always have to fight to keep up their living standards.

That will be worth remembering if the wage pause gets a grip, and the usual bunch of muddle-heads mourn the days before Selwyn Lloyd as a time of free prosperity for the working class.

There just isn't any such thing.


Adenauer Again

Dr. Adenauer’s chances of keeping his grip of the West German Chancellorship were not, at one time, rated very highly.

Most observers expected a close result to the recent elections, with the Free Democrats holding the balance of power in a stalemate between Adenauer's C.D.U. and Brandt's Social Democrats.

And the Free Democrat leader, Dr. Erich Mende, was quite firm that, if his party was invited to form a coalition government with the C.D.U., he would assent only if Adenauer gave up being Chancellor.

Now that Dr. Mende has reversed his attitude and is agreeable to serving under Adenauer, there are one or two questions which many Germans must be asking, themselves.

How many of the four million-odd voters who put their cross against a Free Democratic candidate did so precisely because they approved of Mende’s apparent determination to get rid of the aged Adenauer? And are those voters feeling baffled, or annoyed, about this betrayal?

Whether Adenauer, or Erhard, or Brandt, is Chancellor will make no difference to the German working class.

But it should be instructive for them to observe the cynical manoeuvres of their politicians and to reflect that this sort of thing goes on all the time, all over the world.


Nkrumah Strikes

Dr. Nkrumah has made a habit of disappointing some of the well-meaning asses who supported him because they thought that he wanted to set up a democratic state in Ghana.

These people fall so readily and so persistently for any small-time nationalist who breezes along that it is fair to assume they are able to ignore any evidence which points out the error of their ways.

But surely even they were unsettled by Nkrumah's recent arrest of his political opponents, and by the propaganda which accompanied it?

When the Ghana government roped in the fifty politicians, the official statement justified the arrests by referring to “. . . acts of violence, secret meetings . . . strikes, sabotage, lockouts . . . conduct destructive and subversive, against the Constitution and other legal institutions of the State.”

Now this rings a bell. It is just the sort of vague accusations which colonial powers use to excuse the suppression of a rising nationalist movement.

To read it takes us back to the early nineteen-fifties, when Nkrumah was in gaol. The asses were braying, then, for his release, because he was supposed to be leading Ghana to freedom. Are they surprised that he has turned out to be no better than the rulers he replaced?

We know our asses too well. Even if they drop the dictator in Accra, they will soon be taking up the cause of some other Nkrumah of the future.


Labour Conference

What the theme of this year's Labour Party Conference?

Revolution ? Radicalism ? Reform, even?

Well, no—respectability.

Many responsible newspapers have been worried for a long time at Labour's inability to dent the Tories' confidence. None of them want to see the British capitalist class having to rely upon only one party to form their governments for them.

So they were full of concern that Labour should have a dignified conference. They all hoped for the sort of inoffensive, meaningless resolutions which would make the Labour Party appear as a party which any man of good will could vote for.

This is what is needed to make Mr. Gaitskell anything like a reasonable bet for Prime Minister.

The platform at Brighton played exactly as the press had advised and, except for one or two resolutions, the conference as a whole also fell into line.

This is the logical end to the Labour Party road of power conscious, capitalist reform policies. It is the end which Socialists foretold over fifty years ago, when the Labour Party were busily dubbing us Impossibilists.

Perhaps some of the Labour pioneers never thought it would come to this.

Blackpool, 1961, has done its share to show how wrong they were.

50 Years Ago: The General Strike (1961)

From the November 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

While we strongly sympathise with all real struggles against the employers' attacks, we never cease to urge upon the workers the need for class-consciousness for ending this system of society altogether, by political control.

The General Strike as a means of emancipation must surely fail, for the working class are propertyless, and if they cease work even the "short commons” that "work" means, cease too. Starvation stares them in the face. All acquainted with proletarian life know the terrible privation that strikes entail; the suffering writ large on the faces of the helpless babes, the toddling children and the struggling wives. Such agonising scenes as were to be witnessed on the hillsides and in the valleys of South Wales during the year-long Cambrian Strike. The stripped homes; the crammed pawnshops; the rising mortality: these remind us that strikes strike the workers as well as the masters. This is but a sectional strike; a strike with those at work helping those who are out. But when all the workers strike even that help fails, for they are all in the same boat. . . .

True, a general strike can paralyse industry. A prolonged General Strike can destroy society. For we depend upon continual production, and cessation means death. But death snatches its first victims from the toilers: they are most vulnerable—they have no stores, no reserves. Our masters have.

[From the Socialist Standard, November 1911]

Was It Worth It? (1961)

From the November 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following letter has been received from a sympathiser and we think it will be of interest to our readers.

On September 4 dockworkers and railwaymen at Takoradi and Kumasi in Ghana went on strike against a deliberate attempt by the government to decrease the workers' share of what they produce. The austerity budget introduced in July provided for measures which would lead to an all-round rise in prices. In addition a compulsory savings scheme was introduced and a wage freeze announced.

The strikers were told that they didn’t really want to strike but that they were being forced to; if anyone wished to return to work the government would gladly provide protection. Very few workers took up this offer and President Nkrumah from a holiday resort on the Black Sea coast of Russia ordered his Ministers at home to get tough with the strikers. All those who refused to return to work were threatened with dismissal and troops were moved into Takoradi. The strike was, of course, unofficial since the leadership of the trade unions supports Nkrumah. The general secretary of the T.U.C. hurried back from the neutral's conference in Belgrade, quickly got to know the facts and did not hesitate to call the strike a “counter-revolution" and to denounce it as illegal.

This is not the first time that Ghanian workers have protested. Last year they were demanding wage increases. The opposition newspaper Ashanti Pioneer supported these demands and in September the legal daily minimum wage for unskilled workers was raised from 5s. 6d. to 6s. 6d. The austerity budget will make the workers worse off than they were before September last. Not surprisingly, then, they have gone on strike. The reasons given for last year's trouble are interesting:

  T.U.C. spokesmen blamed the workers’ dissatisfaction on the remnants of a capitalist, imperialist, colonialist system which still darkened the economic and social horizon. The minority and the Ashanti Pioneer, felt that the workers were dissatisfied because they saw top trade union officials and Government Ministers becoming wealthier while the workers suffered. (Observer, 28/8/60.)

For daring to make such observations on the development of capitalism in Ghana and for supporting the demands for wage increases the Ashanti Pioneer found that in future it would be subject to censorship. The Ghana T.U.C. spokesmen are right in attributing the cause of the trouble to Capitalism. But it is not the remnants but the beginning of Capitalism that is responsible. Ghana is just entering a period of capitalist development despite all the talk about "Ghana's way to Socialism." As Capitalism develops and more workers are needed to operate the new machinery the tribes are broken up: simultaneously classes begin to appear among the urban inhabitants. Already Ghana has a wealthy upper class:

  Ghana's first gambling casino will open shortly—but only for foreigners and certain classes of wealthy Ghanians. A company set up to run the casino announced today that in conformity with casino licensing laws passed last year, Ghanians will not be admitted to membership unless they have a yearly income of more than £1.500 and are not members of the armed forces, judiciary, police force or public service departments. (Guardian, 9/6/60.)

Very few workers in this country, let alone Ghana, get £1,500 a year. As it is, with the legal minimum wage at 6s. 6d. a day these Ghanian capitalists get about ten times as much a year as an ordinary worker.

Little wonder, then, that the workers are beginning to feel that perhaps they have no interests in common with all classes of wealthy Ghanians including the Nkrumah ruling clique. Many must be asking themselves as they survey the part they played in the struggle for independence: “Was it worth it? ” Socialists have said all along that national independence movements merely end in the setting up of capitalist nation states and are therefore not worth supporting. The leaders of nationalist parties once in power are faced with the harsh realities of running and expanding Capitalism in their countries; and Capitalism can never be made to run in the interests of the workers. If we look outside Ghana we see the same sort of thing happening: men like Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore and Julius Nyerere of Tanganyika with more regard for democracy than Nkrumah have been forced to act against the workers in their countries, as the following report from Tanganyika shows:

  Relations between Mr. Nyerere, Tanganyika’s Chief Minister, and the territories’ trade union leaders are sharpening. The strike at the Williamson diamond mine which Mr. Nyere firmly ended after 12 days, brought this division into the public eye. After Tanganyika obtained an elected majority in the legislative council in September, trade unionists expected quick action to improve wage levels. But Mr. Nyerere has to be pushed into rash promises or actions. Working closely with Sir Arthur Vasey, his Finance Minister, he is endeavouring to maintain the climate of quiet confidence for foreign investment. (Daily Telegraph, 29/12/60.)

Dr. Banda, after his sweeping victory in the Nyasaland elections, seems to be planning similar actions to those of Nkrumah. The Sunday Express (17/9/61) reports that Suzgo Msiska, leader of one of the two rival trade union congresses in Nyasaland "has lost a great deal of prestige in the eyes of Banda and his colleagues. No sooner had Malawi emerged victorious at the polls than Msiska brought 800 workers out on strike for more pay. Now Banda urges: ‘Msiska must go.’ ’’

In the Congo politicians like Lumumba were elected to power on promises of wage increases which the workers didn’t get. So they went on strike. At first Lumumba called out troops against them but eventually gave in and granted the wage increases, but not before he had devalued the Congolese franc. So that the workers merely received an increase in money wages.

The plain fact of the matter is that independence merely brings a change of masters for the workers—and their new masters are more often than not their former leaders. Socialists see no reason why they should help such men to power. Even the elementary democratic rights of “one man, one vote ” and freedom of political activity that independence may bring are not secure as in events in Ghana in particular show. To those Ghanian and other workers who ask if the struggle for independence was worth it, Socialists reply that it was. not. We do not, of course, expect colonial workers to suffer colonisation for ever. We are just pointing out that independence is not the solution to their problems. Indeed, in many cases it is just the beginning. Socialism is the only solution to the problems of the workers throughout the world.

Adam Buick

Newport, Mon.

Neutered tigers (1998)

Editorial from the May 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Asian “Crisis” goes from bad to worse. The entire region is economically paralysed and Japan—the local Superpower—is itself on the “brink of collapse”, according to the chairman of the Sony Corporation. It only remains to be seen how badly the world economy will be affected.

The real context of this crisis is what we have previously called the “casino” economy. Much of the Asian “tiger” success has been due to vast amounts of speculative capital being invested into property and equities creating rising asset prices which do not correspond to the real productive economy. Subsequently when the “paper bubble” bursts we see the “miracle” for what it really is—a false dawn!

This has not previously been the view of most economic commentators. Initially, when the crisis broke out in Thailand it was put down to a “liquidity crisis” (investors withdrawing their money) as the crisis deepened and Japan started to rock with its banking system about to implode, we were told that the cause of the problem was “corruption” combined with the fact that Japan’s financial sector needed to be “deregulated” and “restructured”. The most popular solution to the region’s problems (aside from the IMF bail-outs) has been for Japan to re-slate its economy by cutting taxes and increasing public spending—thereby creating a motorforce for the region. The extent of a possible world recession therefore depends upon the domestic economic management of the Japanese government. That this view is superficial in the extreme only demonstrates the poverty of bourgeois economics when faced with a crisis of capitalism.

Already we have seen one tiger after another come off the dollar “peg”, setting in motion a round of competitive devaluations. This will probably boost exports relative to imports and in Japan’s case (with a week yen and strong dollar) increase their trade surplus with America.

And this is where the problems may start. Imperialist tensions could well sharpen and a potential trade war complete with protective blocs and further attacks on the working class may be the portent of things to come. Yet again the instability inherent to capitalism hits those least able to protect themselves.

Lenin, Theorist of Nationalism (1998)

From the May 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lenin’s very notion that “imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism” supposes that one nation exploits another, so requiring a “national liberation” movement for the subject nation, which leads the working class of two different countries into a game of slaughtering each other. But the working class has no nation, only a world to win.

We know that, historically, unless a particular class monopolises the means of production and distribution and forces the rest of the people to sell their labour power, no capitalist production is possible. Private property is monopoly. Coupled with the division of labour it is the basis of commodity production as of exchange, money, the market, etc.

But to Lenin monopoly was not this class monopoly but the mere concentration and centralisation of capital. According to Marx, the very existence of capitalist society involves both monopoly (in this sense) and competition, which nullifies Lenin’s supposition that such monopoly is only a feature of “imperialism”:

“In the economic life of the present time you find not only competition and monopoly but also their synthesis, which is not a formula but a movement. Monopoly produces competition, competition produces monopoly” (Letter to Annekov, 28 December 1846).

The basic nature of capital always remains the same both in developed and undeveloped form–production for profit (i.e. the unpaid portion of labour). The defining feature of capitalist production is that it is based on wage-labour. Wages presuppose capital and vice versa. Here also, Lenin failed to understand why different rates of wages prevail in different countries. According to him, wages are higher in imperialist countries because the capitalists there bribe their workers out of the superprofits which they earn from exploiting the subjugated countries.

Marx had a quite different explanation as to why wages were higher in these countries. Both productivity and the rate of exploitation (ratio of paid to unpaid labour) were higher there:

“The more productive one country is relative to another in the world market, the higher will be its wages compared with the other. In England, not only nominal wages but (also) real wages are higher than on the continent. The worker eats more meat, he satisfies more needs. This, however, only applies to the industrial worker and not the agricultural labourer. But in proportion to the productivity of the English workers their wages are not higher (than the wages paid in other countries)” (Theories of Surplus Value, Part Two, pages 16-17).

A lower rate of wages does not make any one country any less capitalist than another: 

“The different states of the different civilised countries, in spite of their motley diversity of form, all have this in common, they are based on modern bourgeois society, only one more or less capitalistically developed” (Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875).

To be capitalist, a country need not be as industrially and commercially developed as the USA, Britain or Germany. Nor is it necessary that each and every district of every capitalist country should be as developed as the Ruhr in Germany or Sheffield and Birmingham in England. The basic requirement is that the production system of the country is conducted on a capitalistic basis, i.e. is based on employers and employees. A country may be highly industrialised or a developed agricultural one or the chief supplier of raw materials for industry or whatever. This happens due to the division of labour amongst the various capitalist countries. So one “nation” cannot exploit another “nation”. Workers all over the world are exploited by the world capitalist class.

The absurdity of Lenin’s theory can be proved by a living example from the life of a worker of our Indian subcontinent. Suppose he is 70 years old and now a citizen of so-called independent Bangladesh. He was a subject of Pakistan and before that of the British Empire. According to Lenin’s theory, he was subjugated by “British imperialists” up to 1947, then by “Pakistani imperialists” up to 1972. Now by which? Yet all through these years he remained a wage slave, not free, though his masters and nationality changed. What a ridiculous proposition is Lenin’s theory!

Lenin’s theory of imperialism fails to grasp the world-wide nature of capitalist society by pitting the working class of undeveloped countries against that of the developed ones. It leads to upholding national interest against class interest, which is detrimental to the world working class interest and their emancipation.

It is now crystal clear that as capitalism is a universal and cosmopolitan phenomenon so also is the working class. The working class cannot emancipate itself nationally.

Marx, in his Inaugural Address to the International Working Men’s Association in 1864, denounced “a foreign policy in pursuit of criminal design, playing upon national prejudices and squandering in piratical wars the people’s blood and treasure”. But this is precisely what Lenin and his heirs practised in the USSR, East Europe, China, Cuba, etc. from 1917 onwards. Numerous open and secret treaties, wars and proclamations by so-called socialist states testify to this.

That “the emancipation of labour is neither a local nor a national but a social problem, embracing all countries in which modern society exists, and depending for its solution on the concurrence, practical and theoretical, of the most advanced countries” (IWMA Rules) should be the guiding principle of the working class of the world.

Asok Kumar Chakrabarti

Look to the Future (1998)

Editorial from the June 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

What are we to make of New Labour’s first year? Have we really noticed any real differences from the last administration other than the fact that the Conservatives were “old and stale”? A dispassionate analysis must answer “no”.

What we have witnessed in the last 12 months is the victory of “Style over Substance”—this in itself now a hackneyed cliché. Indeed, the government’s main programme now appears to be aimed at drumming up support for cosmetic changes like devolution and regional authorities around the country. Ironically, this has been met with a less than enthusiastic response from workers in Scotland, Wales and London.

But New Labour’s problems run deep. As the world recoils from the Asian “Sell-out” we will once again see the impotence of any government when faced with an economic crisis. Britain’s industrial sector is now officially in recession—what will be Mr Blair’s response? The otherwise slick New Labour machine also appears to be on a collision course with an unpopular and probably unworkable European Single Currency. The Tory eurosceptic right must be licking their lips in anticipation! That this superficial, intellectually-challenged government will eventually unravel is only a matter of time.

The working class must learn from this. Are we going to waste the 21st Century as we wasted the 20th? Are we going to continue to make excuses for the slick con-men who exploit us? With current production levels and modern technology do we need the restrictions of the market and money? No we do not. The alternative is global Socialism but this can only come about when a majority of the workers organise for it. Socialism is not just a “nice idea”, it is a material necessity.

50 Years Ago: Palestine and its Problems (1998)

The 50 Years Ago column from the June 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

Within a few hours of the proclamation of the new Jewish State by its self-appointed provisional Government, President Truman startled the world by publicly stating that America would recognise it. Commentators on Truman’s action attributed it to a late attempt to capture the Jewish vote in the forthcoming presidential election. This is too thin. While in fact it may have this result there is far more behind the action than electioneering propaganda. Jews and Arabs in Palestine, like the Greeks, the Italians and the Jugo-slavs, are pawns in a much greater game which involves oil and the struggle between Russia and the Western Powers for economic domination . . .

There are two oil pipe lines from Iraq to the Mediterranean; one through Syria to the Coast, and the other through Transjordan to Haifa. Thus it is necessary to placate or force the ruling groups in each of these territories to favour the production and transport of oil on behalf of Western capitalists . . .

The Palestine episode is thus another move in the strategical line-up of the two major imperialistic powers—America and Russia. Russia originally backed the Arabs—then they changed over to support of the Jews. Truman’s quick response to the establishment of the Jewish State was obviously aimed at getting in first and forestalling Russia.

[From front page article by Gilmac, Socialist Standard, June 1948]

Possibility of change (1998)

Book Review from the June 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Doctrine of DNA by R.C. Lewontin. Penguin Books, £5.99.

Every socialist should read this book. In less than 130 pages one of the co-authors of the excellent Not in Our Genes brilliantly argues against the sociobiologists’ claim that all human existence is controlled by our DNA.

His book, subtitled “Biology & Ideology”, is a collection of radio lectures he gave on CBS. The language is simple and straightforward and demands no specialised knowledge of genetics.

He is devastating when dealing with the role of science in the modern world:

“Science uses commodities and is part of the process of commodity production. Science uses money. People earn their living by science, and as a consequence the dominant social and economic forces in society determine to a large extent what science does and how it does it.”

He shows that despite its limited medical application a great deal of money is being spent on the Human Genome Project. This programme makes great philosophical and social claims that he, as one of the world’s leading geneticists, shows are nonsense. He further claims that the programme is lining the pockets of companies. “No prominent molecular biologist of my acquaintance is without a financial stake in the biotechnology business.”

He is scathing in his attack on claims that there are genes that shape aggression, xenophobia, sexism and racism. His last chapter “Science as Social Action” is an excellent summation of the pointless “nature or nurture” debate because he takes a thoroughly dialectical view, one that could not be bettered.

Richard Donnelly